IMPORTANT POINT
Retired employees are entitled to consideration for notional promotion and consequential benefits as per relevant regulations and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPLs. 47994-47995/2023

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Applications disposed of.

W.P.(C) 12213/2023, CM APPLs. 47993/2023 & 47996/2023

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated January 17, 2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 2451/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA by stating in paragraphs 8 and 9 as under:

"8. Heard counsel for the parties at length, perused the records and gone through the legal position as well. The applicant who has since been retired on 30.06.2005, was left out for the reason that he was not in service on the date when the DPC took place for consideration to the aforesaid post. According to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled for consideration for promotion because he has not actually shouldered responsibilities of the said post. If we apply the above ratio of P.G. George and Jagdish Lal (Supra), the applicant is liable to be considered for promotion even after his retirement on notional basis. Even according to the DoPT OM dated 12.10.1998, retired employee who were within zone of consideration in the relevant year are entitled for notional promotion.

9. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case as well as the legal position perused, we are of this view that the applicant is entitled for consideration for the post of Under Secretary, with effect from the date he is eligible for promotion, but the promotion shall be given on notional basis with all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

2. The facts as noted from the record are that the respondent was appointed as Section Officer, on regular basis on December 24, 1991 in terms of LDCE held in the year 1990. He superannuated on June 30, 2005. In the year 2009, a select list for the post of Under Secretary was issued by petitioner no.1 wherein the respondent was placed at serial No. 650. He could not get any promotion till the date of his superannuation. It is the conceded case of the parties that in the year 2009, person junior to the respondent was promoted to the post of Under Secretary w.e.f. July 01, 2003.

3. Respondent feeling aggrieved by the promotion of his junior made a representation dated April 20, 2012 which was rejected on June 29, 2012. We have already reproduced relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal while allowing the O.A.

4. The only submission made by Mr. Mishra by drawing our attention to page 87 of the paper book is that the Rule 6(3)(c) of The Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade (Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1966, which reads as under, stipulates that, on retirement of an officer, his name is removed from the select list:

"xxx xxx xxx

6.(3)(c) Persons who die or retire from service or whose services are otherwise terminated; and"

5. His submission is that the Select List included the name of the respondent though he had retired. On the date of DPC, as he stood retired and in terms of Rule 6(3)(c), he could not have been considered for promotion.

6. We are unable to agree with the submission made by Mr. Mishra for the simple reason that the promotion of the so called Junior was not w.e.f., 2009, i.e., prospective but from a retrospective date/year i.e., July 1, 2003 when the respondent was working with the petitioners.

7. We are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in relying upon its judgment in P.G. George v. GOI & Anr., OA No. 1409/2009 decided on April 22, 2010. Suffice to state, the writ petition filed by the UOI being W.P.(C) 4864/2010, (UOI and Anr. v. P.G. George) has been dismissed by this Court. In fact, this Court had also decided a similar issue in W.P.(C) 2053/2020 titled as Bhagwan Singh v. Union of India and Ors. wherein this Court has in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 has stated as under:

"The law in this regard is well settled, as relied upon by Mr.Behera in the case of Union of India & Anr. v